DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments filed on 1/30/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0267744 ("Tsuji") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0149097 ("Li") further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0052823 ("Jung").
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji discloses an image sensor comprising:
a sensor substrate (21, Fig. 2B) comprising a plurality of light sensing cells (23, Fig. 2B) configured to sense light (paragraph [0047]); and
a color filter array (27, Fig. 2B) provided on the sensor substrate (21, Fig. 2B, via 25, Fig. 2B), the color filter array comprising:
a plurality of filters (27, Fig. 2A-B, paragraphs [0036], [0045]) provided to respectively face the plurality of light sensing cells (23, Fig. 2B) to filter light of different wavelengths (paragraphs [0053], [0067]), the plurality of filters comprising a first filter of a first color, a second filter of a second color and a color filter of a third color (paragraph [0067]: “color filter 27 has three types of red (R), green (G) and blue (B), and is subjected to a Bayer arrangement, for example.”), and
a fence structure (29, Fig. 2B) configured to separate the plurality of filters from each other (paragraph [0036]),
wherein a width of the fence structure (width of 29, Fig. 2B) interposed between two adjacent filters (27, Fig. 2B), among the plurality of filters (27, Figs. 2A-B), has a plurality of different values (paragraph [0055], width of partition wall is varied), and
wherein a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value among the plurality of values is equal to or greater than 20 nm (paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Tsuji does not disclose that the width of the fence structure is different according to a characteristics of each of the two adjacent filters, nor that the fence structure has a first width between the first filter of the first color and the second filter of the second color, and a second width between the second color filter of the second color and the third filter of the third color, the first width being greater than the second width.
However, Li discloses that the width of the fence structure (111, 113, Figs. 1-4) is different according to a characteristics of each of the two adjacent filters (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the width of the fence structures according to a characteristics of the adjacent filters as disclosed by Li in the device of Tsuji in order to suppress the occurrence of color mixing between pixels while accounting for vignetting.
Tsuji in view of Li does not disclose that the fence structure has a first width between the first filter of the first color and the second filter of the second color, and a second width between the second color filter of the second color and the third filter of the third color, the first width being greater than the second width.
However, Jung discloses that the fence structure (150, Figs. 26, 27) has a first width (paragraph [0088]) between the first filter of the first color (for example, R, Fig. 26-27) and the second filter of the second color (G, Figs. 26-27) and a second width (paragraph [0088]) between the second color filter of the second color (G, Fig. 26-27) and the third filter of the third color (for example, B, Fig. 26-27), the first width being greater than the second width (see Figs. 26-27, the width between G and R is greater than the width between G and B, Figs. 26-27, paragraph [0088]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the width between specific colors as disclosed by Jung in the device of Li in view of Tsuji in order to control the amount of light each specific color receives.
Regarding claim 2, Tsuji in view of Li and Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Tsuji further discloses that the fence structure (29, Fig. 2B) comprises a material having a first refractive index lower than a second refractive index of each of the plurality of filters (27, Fig. 2B, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuji in view of Li and Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Tsuji further discloses that the plurality of filters (27, Fig. 2B) comprise a red filter, a first green filter, a second green filter, and a blue filter arranged in a Bayer pattern (paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuji in view of Li and Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 3, and although Tsuji in view of Li and Jung does not explicitly state that the first filter is the red filter, the second filter is the first green filter and the third filter is the blue filter, the numbering of the specific filters is arbitrary and does not have a limiting effect, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to number the color filters in any desired way and change the specific dimensions in order to improve light sensitivity in a particular color as desired for an application.
Regarding claim 5, Tsuji in view of Li and Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 4, Jung further discloses that the fence structure has a third width between the red filter and the second green filter and a fourth width between the second green filter and the blue filter, the third width being greater than the fourth width (paragraph [0088], the widths at the four sides of at least four pixels can be different, therefore there can be four different widths).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have different widths for different colors as disclosed by Li in the device of Tsuji in view of Li and Jung in order to improve light sensitivity and angular selectivity.
Regarding claim 7, Tsuji in view of Li and Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose that the first green filter and the second green filter have a first area smaller than a second area of the blue filter and greater than a third area of the red filter.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the area of the different filters by adjusting the width of the fence structures in order to prioritize either sensitivity or prevent mixing of light, as desired according to purpose.
Regarding claim 15, Tsuji in view of Li and Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 1, and Li further discloses that the plurality of filters comprise:
a red filter group comprising four red filters (115R, Fig. 1); a first green filter group comprising four first green filters (115G, Fig. 1); a second green filter group comprising four second green filters (115G, Fig. 1); and a blue filter group comprising four blue filters (115B, Fig. 1), and wherein the red filter group, the first green filter group, the second green filter group, and the blue filter group are arranged in a Bayer pattern (see Fig. 1, paragraphs [0052]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the filters in a quad-Bayer pattern as disclosed by Li in the device of Tsuji in view of Li and Jung in order to generate a full color image of a scene.
Regarding 16, Tsuji in view of Li and Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 15, and Li further discloses that a width of the fence structure (for example, MWG, Fig. 2) between filters of a same color (for example, green filters 113G, Figs. 1-4) is different from a width of the fence structure between filters of different colors (MWB or MBR, Figs. 1-4, paragraph [0058]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have different widths for different colors as disclosed by Li in the device of Tsuji in view of Li and Jung in order to improve light sensitivity and angular selectivity.
Claims 8, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Li and Jung further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0391363 ("Ai").
Regarding claim 8, Tsuji in view of Li and Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 3, but does not disclose that the sensor substrate comprises an isolation structure configured to electrically separate the plurality of light sensing cells and arranged corresponding to the fence structure.
However, Ai discloses a sensor substrate (101, Fig. 1D) comprises an isolation structure (for example, 115-1, 115-3, 115-4, Fig. 1D) configured to electrically separate the plurality of light sensing cells (115-3 separates cells 105-2 and 105-1, Fig. 1D) and arranged corresponding to the fence structure (145, Fig. 1D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include isolation structures as disclosed by Ai in the device of Tsuji in view of Li and Jung in order to improve light sensitivity and angular selectivity.
Regarding claim 14, Tsuji in view of Li, Jung, and Ai discloses the image sensor of claim 8, and Ai further discloses that the fence structure (145, Fig. 1D) and the isolation structure (115-3, Fig. 1D) are vertically connected to each other (see Fig. 1D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include isolation structures vertically connected to the fence structure as disclosed by Ai in the device of Tsuji in view of Li and Jung in order to improve light sensitivity and angular selectivity.
Regarding claim 19, Tsuji in view of Li and Jung discloses the image sensor of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose an isolation structure configured to electrically separate the plurality of light sensing cells and face the fence structure.
However, Ai discloses that the sensor substrate (101, Fig. 1D) comprises an isolation structure (115-3, Fig. 1D) configured to electrically separate (paragraph [0032], electrical crosstalk is reduced by all isolation structures) the plurality of light sensing cells (105-1 to 105-4, Fig. 1D) and face the fence structure (145, Fig. 1D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include isolation structures as disclosed by Ai in the device of Tsuji in view of Li and Jung in order to improve electrical crosstalk, light sensitivity, and angular selectivity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Li and Jung further in view of Ai.
Regarding claim 20, Tsuji discloses an electronic device comprising:
an image sensor configured to convert an optical image into an electrical signal (inherent function of imaging devices); and wherein the image sensor comprises:
a sensor substrate (21, Fig. 2B) comprising a plurality of light sensing cells (23, Fig. 2B) configured to sense light (paragraph [0047]); and
a color filter array (27, Fig. 2B) provided on the sensor substrate (21, Fig. 2B, via 25, Fig. 2B), the color filter array comprising:
a plurality of filters (27, Fig. 2A-B, paragraphs [0036], [0045]) provided to respectively face the plurality of light sensing cells (23, Fig. 2B) to filter light of different wavelengths (paragraphs [0053], [0067]), the plurality of filters comprising a first filter of a first color, a second filter of a second color and a color filter of a third color (paragraph [0067]: “color filter 27 has three types of red (R), green (G) and blue (B), and is subjected to a Bayer arrangement, for example.”), and
a fence structure (29, Fig. 2B) configured to separate the plurality of filters from each other (paragraph [0036]),
wherein a width of the fence structure (width of 29, Fig. 2B) interposed between two adjacent filters (27, Fig. 2B), among the plurality of filters (27, Figs. 2A-B), has a plurality of different values (paragraph [0055], width of partition wall is varied), and
wherein a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value among the plurality of values is equal to or greater than 20 nm (paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Tsuji does not disclose that the width of the fence structure is different according to a characteristics of each of the two adjacent filters, that the fence structure has a first width between the first filter of the first color and the second filter of the second color, and a second width between the second color filter of the second color and the third filter of the third color, the first width being greater than the second width, nor does it explicitly disclose a processor.
However, Li discloses that the width of the fence structure (111, 113, Figs. 1-4) is different according to a characteristics of each of the two adjacent filters (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the width of the fence structures according to a characteristics of the adjacent filters as disclosed by Li in the device of Tsuji in order to suppress the occurrence of color mixing between pixels while accounting for vignetting.
Tsuji in view of Li does not disclose that the fence structure has a first width between the first filter of the first color and the second filter of the second color, and a second width between the second color filter of the second color and the third filter of the third color, the first width being greater than the second width, nor a processor.
However, Jung discloses that the fence structure (150, Figs. 26, 27) has a first width (paragraph [0088]) between the first filter of the first color (for example, R, Fig. 26-27) and the second filter of the second color (G, Figs. 26-27) and a second width (paragraph [0088]) between the second color filter of the second color (G, Fig. 26-27) and the third filter of the third color (for example, B, Fig. 26-27), the first width being greater than the second width (see Figs. 26-27, the width between G and R is greater than the width between G and B, Figs. 26-27, paragraph [0088]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the width between specific colors as disclosed by Jung in the device of Li in view of Tsuji in order to control the amount of light each specific color receives.
Tsuji in view of Li and Jung does not explicitly disclose a processor.
However, Ai discloses a processor configured to control an operation of the image sensor and process a signal generated by the image sensor (see Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0047]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a processor as disclosed by Ai in the device of Tsuji in view of Li and Jung in order to control the operation (e.g., during pre-, post-, and in situ phases of image and/or video acquisition) of the various components of imaging system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-13, and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The invention as claimed, specifically in combination with a distance between centers of pixels adjacent to each other among a plurality of pixels is equal to or less than 0.6 µm; or a width of the isolation structure varies according to a type of a filter facing two adjacent light sensing cells, between which the isolation structure is interposed; or widths of the fence structure between filters of a same color are different from each other in two or more filter groups, are not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5, 20, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights